If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

#14 is very vague and it really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you just wanted to failover the two T-1's you could just use floating static routes. However, if you wanted to load share based on interface metrics across both T-1's you would use BGP. There really are 2 right answers.

Also, I find it kind of funny that an ISP would have 2 T-1's to the Internet, and then have 4 clients with T-1's coming into their network. Anybody that knows anything about networking knows that this is a recipe for disaster because you have a potential for about 6Mbps of traffic coming in from your clients, but are only able to provide them with a maximum of approx 3Mbps of throughput to the Internet.

Official Answers

I just wrote the professor who gave the original test and got his answers. Looks like I only missed one. Here are his notes on each question, though:

1) The goal is the partition use. DF is the only program that will tell you about the
partition: A

2) You want to know it is running. So D and E are right out. A is good, it will work. B will not work, because SMTP is not the name of the daemon. Unless you have a newer program than when I gave this test.

C might work if the directory was right. But /proc does not contain process names. I saw someone use /proc/running today. So you can get there thru proc now days.

3) B: FSTAB has nothing to do with users.

4) E : get the > and ; straight.

5) E: it translates to 110 110 111 101

6) Since telnet is already run from inetd/xinetd, you can just change the telnet service in /etc/services , so B

7) B bridge becuase the IP space is the same space.

8) D: *[^a]$ will catch both "vail" and "aspen" because neither has an "a" at the end.Note: his actual answer on this one was "At this time of night, all these look wrong.", but I know for a fact that D is the correct answer. If you doubt it, run a test yourself!

basically, i have a problem about Q 9
i just cant get why we shouldnt use cgi-script. If the program prints the results in a readable form (call me XML) there's not a point not to use cgi. (the client is going to work on web-based gui)
if you or the teacher can xplain this to me, i would greatly appreciate =)

sk8 -- I missed number 9, too. Apparently he had emphasized it in class. Here's his answer:

----
The question 9 was specific to the class in the sense that I was trying
to elicit an understanding of what I had demonstrated in class.

You can in about 5 minutes complete the task by just using inetd and
host.allow/deny.... No fancy programing is needed to get a basic
service up and going , if you have the example program working with
the datamanipulation.

Try making a /usr/games/fortune server for your friends. in 5 minutes you can give them
fortunes over the net just by hooking fortune to the inetd.

I have several tests in my archive. It is always good to get feedback
on questions.
----

His main point seemed to be that you don't have to write an extra script for something just to make it a service. Furthermore, in the question, he states that he only wanted specific IP's to have access to the data. That's where the hosts.allow and hosts.deny come into play. If you were to make a CGI that converts the data into a web page, you would then have to protect it with a password so that only people from those specific IP's had access. Creating a password for the resulting HTML was not part of answer E. I hope that answers your question.

contrary to cgi, the customers will not commit to install a program, other they very simply can with their browser have access in the data
(this of course requires one very well set up web-server with big attention in httpd.cong
(thats just an idea not essentially the right answer)
thanks =)
ah, could he/or you exlain the why he should use a bridge instead of a router in question Number 7?
generally tcp/ip internets (where internets = collection of networks) are based in routers not bridges, now that I am thinking about theres a second reason (imo) why we should use a router instead of a bridge, a bridge links networks in link layers (that is to say in ethernet that they have as we say) while a router links networks in their network layer (it does not need ethernet and more generally hardware in order to link 2 networks)

thank you so much! (=

and by the way, tell him to give you some more tests so we can have something to do =)